After nearly 50 pages all I care about is one thing: does it get me to where I want to be. Does it?

where do you want to be?

It was sort of philosphical, but in the end the Start Screen is just a glorified launcher so in the end I don't really care.

I may be just a jaded IT guy these days but the less I have to look at the Start Menu/Screen or explorer, the better. And I used to use Litestep back in the hobbyist days. If I was a hobbyist still I'd probably hate the Start Screen. I guess I can still hate it, as much as I hate the Start Menu.

After nearly 50 pages all I care about is one thing: does it get me to where I want to be. Does it?

Well on Win7 just a few minutes ago I wanted to launch the PowerShell IDE, so I hit Start and typed "Powershell". Unfortunately all three "slots" for showing apps were taken up with the various PowerShell consoles, so I had to click the "Programs" link, which opens an Explorer window with all apps containing "Power", finding the bizarrely named "PowerShell ISE" This is an extra step that I wouldn't have had to take with Win8 as it'd just show all the apps fullscreen as soon as I start typing.

So IMHO yeah, Win8's launcher is better than Win7's. Which TBH isn't hard.

After nearly 50 pages all I care about is one thing: does it get me to where I want to be. Does it?

Well on Win7 just a few minutes ago I wanted to launch the PowerShell IDE, so I hit Start and typed "Powershell". Unfortunately all three "slots" for showing apps were taken up with the various PowerShell consoles, so I had to click the "Programs" link, which opens an Explorer window with all apps containing "Power", finding the bizarrely named "PowerShell ISE" This is an extra step that I wouldn't have had to take with Win8 as it'd just show all the apps fullscreen as soon as I start typing.

So IMHO yeah, Win8's launcher is better than Win7's. Which TBH isn't hard.

This doesn't reflect my own experience. IMO W7 search is awesome, and the few times when an item hasn't shown up immediately was because I hadn't used that item previously (or seldom). W7's search learns by the user's habit. This is what I get when I type "powershell":

On a stock install, searching via the start menu includes "Search with public folders", and will produce the result that Paul Hill is describing if he uses a phrase that appears outside of his programs and control panel.

You can limit the start menu search to programs and control panels if you don't care about getting file hits within that part of the interface, though:

I have a lot of PowerShell gubbins in emails and folders, that crunches apps down to three items.

I'm not saying W7's search isn't useful (Man I miss it on 2003/XP boxes) but it's got some pretty sharp limitations if you go for the default of mixing stuff together. Again I'm not saying Win8's search is perfect either (Searching Outlook from the charm appears to be MIA) but for this specific instance it would have been better than what Win8 providers.

The Ventriloquist wrote:

You can limit the start menu search to programs and control panels if you don't care about getting file hits within that part of the interface, though:

On a stock install, searching via the start menu includes "Search with public folders", and will produce the result that Paul Hill is describing if he uses a phrase that appears outside of his programs and control panel.

You can limit the start menu search to programs and control panels if you don't care about getting file hits within that part of the interface, though:

While I agree with you, this would only work if he knew the ISE part, which by the mention of how weird it is, makes me think that he didn't remember that it's ISE instead of IDE.

That is a good point. Unfortunately, and continuing on the database equivalent, you're hitting a standard issue: the key you used to search through your data returns a dataset that it still too large to handle. That's a basic failure case but also one that should be pretty marginal: typically, search isn't the best tool to handle a "drill down" type of lookup, in particular when said search is removing all the contextual data concerning your results.

Back to the specific, your example is typical of the case where the start menu performs much, much better than the start screen because you can have a nice, hierarchical and alpha-sorted view of all your items so you can easily local and look into semantic groups: the "all programs" sub-folder.

Actually, wouldn't this case be a win for Windows 8 since if he were to press Start and type "Power" or "PowerShell" all he would get is apps, not indexed documents, related to PowerShell? And since it's fullscreen, more results shown?

I suggest that, next time your search key returns a dataset too large for you, you change the key instead of changing the tool. For instance, typing "ISE" would have been a better selection.

I'm supposed to remember that the PowerShell IDE is actually called PowerShell ISE and use that to differentiate app searches, assuming there's not three other apps with "ise" in their title?

What the?

Yes, you're supposed to remember that. That's the trade-off you accepted when you decided to use search: you assume you know a keyword that is specific enough to let you get your data or, at least, a subset of the data small enough for easily and quickly locating your data.

What do you do when you google for your web mail interface ? type "web mail" and hope your own will be in the first page ?

Actually, wouldn't this case be a win for Windows 8 since if he were to press Start and type "Power" or "PowerShell" all he would get is apps, not indexed documents, related to PowerShell? And since it's fullscreen, more results shown?

Yes exactly that thanks, it was just something I noticed when Win7's search didn't kick up what I expected. Some absolutely crazy responses though outside of yours, we've got Sandoken flat out denying that's what Win7 does, Fulgan seems to be explaining how databases work and somehow making it my "fault" which is... wow.

I'm thinking I'm pretty much done here as in "Here" Ars Technica reading or writing. The signal is really great but the noise is just too much of a struggle

I actually agree with Fulgan on the database thing. If a query is returning too many results or not the results you want, you refine the query. The way categorization of Windows 8's search (which I still hate, but will give credit where it's due) ends up "fixing" this by not showing indexed app content, so no emails or RSS feeds, and by separating out settings and files, so PowerShell.docx and Power Options show up in another category.

However, EdlAk's mockups from another thread would also solve your issue because the results screen is a fullscreen environment and we wouldn't lose the functionality of Win7's search.

Actually, wouldn't this case be a win for Windows 8 since if he were to press Start and type "Power" or "PowerShell" all he would get is apps, not indexed documents, related to PowerShell? And since it's fullscreen, more results shown?

Yes exactly that thanks, it was just something I noticed when Win7's search didn't kick up what I expected. Some absolutely crazy responses though outside of yours, we've got Sandoken flat out denying that's what Win7 does, Fulgan seems to be explaining how databases work and somehow making it my "fault" which is... wow.

I'm thinking I'm pretty much done here as in "Here" Ars Technica reading or writing. The signal is really great but the noise is just too much of a struggle

I am not denying that it happened to you. I showed graphically that my experience differs from yours with a default config of W7's Search function. I agree with Fulgan as well. If you are gonna conduct a search without key/specific words, then it's not the Search function's fault your results don't show what you expect. It'd be great to search using boolean combos though. And it is s@nDOk@n, not Sandoken. No wonder you are not getting good results in your searches..o_0

I actually agree with Fulgan on the database thing. If a query is returning too many results or not the results you want, you refine the query.

See, this is the root problem with this forum.

I wasn't "running a database query" I was trying to launch PowerShell.

In this specific instance Win8 would have been faster, but rather than agree to that we're in this completely meaningless discussion that I should have "searched with more restrictive criteria" because it's really a database, a side-order of a fantasy fullscreen "All" search (which yeah nice drawings but that doesn't really help anyone) and a frosting of s@nDOK@n getting a bit uppity because I didn't spell his made-up name right.

Really, have a look at these responses and have a think about what exactly you were trying to accomplish in the long-term. Because I'm ssoooooo outa here.

That's not a root problem with the forum, that's a problem of searching anything. You don't get what you want, you try something else. The result you wanted was too far down the list so how do you bring it up to the top? We are allowed to go a bit advanced because average users do not type-to-launch. We are already in a "power user" mindset just by dicussing typing in the search box to launch apps.

I actually agree with Fulgan on the database thing. If a query is returning too many results or not the results you want, you refine the query.

See, this is the root problem with this forum.

I wasn't "running a database query" I was trying to launch PowerShell.

In this specific instance Win8 would have been faster, but rather than agree to that we're in this completely meaningless discussion that I should have "searched with more restrictive criteria" because it's really a database, a side-order of a fantasy fullscreen "All" search (which yeah nice drawings but that doesn't really help anyone) and a frosting of s@nDOK@n getting a bit uppity because I didn't spell his made-up name right.

Really, have a look at these responses and have a think about what exactly you were trying to accomplish in the long-term. Because I'm ssoooooo outa here.

Search should search everything by default. That way it captures as much info as possible. Then with that the user can redefine what he or she wants to search for. If I type powershell into the search box in my Win7 install by default it returns to me five programs and about twenty Outlook items.

This may be a case of "use the right tool for the right job". If I type Win + r and then powershell and enter I get a powershell Window. I didn't know if it would work until I did it but had it not I wouldn't have been upset about it.

Personally, I can't stand the programs list in the Start Menu. I never could. It is totally antithetical to me to have to reparse the stupid list of applications that sometimes spans two screens to find an application I use infrequently. Search helps with that, but I don't even think the Start Screen will help. 90% of my programs list is pointless (who needs an icon to open Acrobat Reader?) and I don't think anyone in Windows, Linux or MacOS land has figured out how to make it easy to use infrequently accessed programs. And no, having the dock filled with every single program on a 27in screen doesn't count!

I actually agree with Fulgan on the database thing. If a query is returning too many results or not the results you want, you refine the query.

See, this is the root problem with this forum.

I wasn't "running a database query" I was trying to launch PowerShell.

In this specific instance Win8 would have been faster, but rather than agree to that we're in this completely meaningless discussion that I should have "searched with more restrictive criteria" because it's really a database, a side-order of a fantasy fullscreen "All" search (which yeah nice drawings but that doesn't really help anyone) and a frosting of s@nDOK@n getting a bit uppity because I didn't spell his made-up name right.

Really, have a look at these responses and have a think about what exactly you were trying to accomplish in the long-term. Because I'm ssoooooo outa here.

I didn't get "uppity" because you entered whatever you wanted instead of my nick. What if I wrote Pawl Heel instead of Paul Hill when conducting a search? I dunno what your problem is with this forum, other that you clearly don't want to admit that you tried to access "powershell" and failed in your attempt, while (with default settings) I had no problems getting to the ISE in particular, because all entries for powershell were displayed. So, if it's not systemic (the failure to reach the desired result), then it's just another PEBKAC issue. It happens eventually to all of us, OK? We get distracted or whathaveyou, but you prefer to call this noise and opt out by slamming the door. Your loss in the long run.

That's not a root problem with the forum, that's a problem of searching anything. You don't get what you want, you try something else. The result you wanted was too far down the list so how do you bring it up to the top? We are allowed to go a bit advanced because average users do not type-to-launch. We are already in a "power user" mindset just by dicussing typing in the search box to launch apps.

Thats the root of the problem with users: many are fine folks with a working brain that understand that tools need to be learned before they can be put to good use. Unfortunately, there is a number of people who fail to understand that basic point. You seem to be a member of that group.

To be more specific, your problem is that you do not even attempt to solve the problem correctly: you try it one way and it fails (that's ok). At that point, instead of wondering how you could solve the issue (finding a better search term) you immediatly say "the tool is broken" and request a bigger hammer.

Win8 will not satisfy you: there will be a point where your incorrectly formulated search queries will still return too many answers, whether it's because there are too many to display on a page or because there are too many to effectively sort "by hand", especially since search results do not have contextual info attached.

To be more specific, your problem is that you do not even attempt to solve the problem correctly

With Windows 8 it will at least separate out the non-apps so he'll have the one he wants listed. Presumably he knows to click on the ISE one. I have the other problem: if I'm searching for something, and it's not an app, I'll get zero results by default and have to click on settings or files. Who's idea was it to show nothing by default when it could just helpfully show some of the settings and files that it already found?

I'm also a bit confused by the separation between 'metro' settings and 'desktop' settings in the control panel. Some things got moved to metro and searching works differently for them. That's kind of dumb, and it's also pretty confusing since they've pretty much fucked it up for anyone who's either trying to use metro or used to using the desktop.

To be more specific, your problem is that you do not even attempt to solve the problem correctly: you try it one way and it fails (that's ok). At that point, instead of wondering how you could solve the issue (finding a better search term) you immediatly say "the tool is broken" and request a bigger hammer.

But there in lies the dilemma. When is it the tool's fault? And when is it the user's fault? As we've seen with discussion on the start screen some people can use it effectively and some can't. I don't expect some people to be able to wield the command prompt with the same effectiveness as me, but is it broken because they can't figure it out? Or should the user even be expected to understand that tool?

To be more specific, your problem is that you do not even attempt to solve the problem correctly: you try it one way and it fails (that's ok). At that point, instead of wondering how you could solve the issue (finding a better search term) you immediatly say "the tool is broken" and request a bigger hammer.

But there in lies the dilemma. When is it the tool's fault? And when is it the user's fault? As we've seen with discussion on the start screen some people can use it effectively and some can't. I don't expect some people to be able to wield the command prompt with the same effectiveness as me, but is it broken because they can't figure it out? Or should the user even be expected to understand that tool?

There's no dilemma. You answered your own question. If the tool can be used effectively it is always the user's responsibility to learn how to use it properly. End of story IMO.

Well on Win7 just a few minutes ago I wanted to launch the PowerShell IDE, so I hit Start and typed "Powershell". Unfortunately all three "slots" for showing apps were taken up with the various PowerShell consoles, so I had to click the "Programs" link, which opens an Explorer window with all apps containing "Power", finding the bizarrely named "PowerShell ISE" This is an extra step that I wouldn't have had to take with Win8 as it'd just show all the apps fullscreen as soon as I start typing.

You know you can use the "+" in Windows 7 search, right?Searching for "pow+i" will get you Powershell ISE.

To be more specific, your problem is that you do not even attempt to solve the problem correctly: you try it one way and it fails (that's ok). At that point, instead of wondering how you could solve the issue (finding a better search term) you immediatly say "the tool is broken" and request a bigger hammer.

But there in lies the dilemma. When is it the tool's fault? And when is it the user's fault? As we've seen with discussion on the start screen some people can use it effectively and some can't. I don't expect some people to be able to wield the command prompt with the same effectiveness as me, but is it broken because they can't figure it out? Or should the user even be expected to understand that tool?

There's no dilemma. You answered your own question. If the tool can be used effectively it is always the user's responsibility to learn how to use it properly. End of story IMO.

I see your point but I don't agree. Tools can be obfuscated and difficult. And if it was always the users fault, they would just require training and processes instead of updating, adding new interfaces and bug-fixing.

To be more specific, your problem is that you do not even attempt to solve the problem correctly: you try it one way and it fails (that's ok). At that point, instead of wondering how you could solve the issue (finding a better search term) you immediatly say "the tool is broken" and request a bigger hammer.

But there in lies the dilemma. When is it the tool's fault? And when is it the user's fault? As we've seen with discussion on the start screen some people can use it effectively and some can't. I don't expect some people to be able to wield the command prompt with the same effectiveness as me, but is it broken because they can't figure it out? Or should the user even be expected to understand that tool?

There's no dilemma. You answered your own question. If the tool can be used effectively it is always the user's responsibility to learn how to use it properly. End of story IMO.

I see your point but I don't agree. Tools can be obfuscated and difficult. And if it was always the users fault, they would just require training and processes instead of updating, adding new interfaces and bug-fixing.

What tools are you talking about? The tools provided by MS as stock are nothing but simple. Seriously. We are not talking here about recompiling the kernel or debugging some starnge occuurence. It's a search FFS!! The CLI could fit the description of "difficult" for some people, but then again, the OS provides other interfaces to do the same without using the CLI. There are millions of people using Windows, to some those tools will look impossible to descipher, to others, easy as pie. There are multiple options in every case. A power user will find those "advanced" tools simple and practical. A non savvy user will not use them and resort to use another simpler tool with a nice and colorful GUI. In every case, if the tool is indeed effective, it falls under the user's due diligence to learn how to use it.

Nearly every machine I've sat in front of, the user turned auto arrange off because they don't like their icons moving around.

I really wish people would consider that their experience may not in any way translate to the experience of the *billions* of other users out there.

I work on a product with literally trillions of data points that we can draw upon to gauge impact. Your usage feeds into that, but it may not at all be representative.

Guess how many data points a user cares about? 1. Your trillions of data points are completely meaningless to me.

Then why on earth do you feel that Linux will be a better choice for you? It's not like they're going to care about you either? The distros will continue making choices, which continue pissing off tons of their users. You have just as much chance getting caught up into that as you do on Windows.

To be more specific, your problem is that you do not even attempt to solve the problem correctly: you try it one way and it fails (that's ok). At that point, instead of wondering how you could solve the issue (finding a better search term) you immediatly say "the tool is broken" and request a bigger hammer.

But there in lies the dilemma. When is it the tool's fault? And when is it the user's fault? As we've seen with discussion on the start screen some people can use it effectively and some can't. I don't expect some people to be able to wield the command prompt with the same effectiveness as me, but is it broken because they can't figure it out? Or should the user even be expected to understand that tool?

There's no dilemma. You answered your own question. If the tool can be used effectively it is always the user's responsibility to learn how to use it properly. End of story IMO.

I see your point but I don't agree. Tools can be obfuscated and difficult. And if it was always the users fault, they would just require training and processes instead of updating, adding new interfaces and bug-fixing.

What tools are you talking about? The tools provided by MS as stock are nothing but simple. Seriously. We are not talking here about recompiling the kernel or debugging some starnge occuurence. It's a search FFS!! The CLI could fit the description of "difficult" for some people, but then again, the OS provides other interfaces to do the same without using the CLI. There are millions of people using Windows, to some those tools will look impossible to descipher, to others, easy as pie. There are multiple options in every case. A power user will find those "advanced" tools simple and practical. A non savvy user will not use them and resort to use another simpler tool with a nice and colorful GUI. In every case, if the tool is indeed effective, it falls under the user's due diligence to learn how to use it.

All of them, but obviously you don't care to understand my point, so nevermind.

To be more specific, your problem is that you do not even attempt to solve the problem correctly: you try it one way and it fails (that's ok). At that point, instead of wondering how you could solve the issue (finding a better search term) you immediatly say "the tool is broken" and request a bigger hammer.

But there in lies the dilemma. When is it the tool's fault? And when is it the user's fault? As we've seen with discussion on the start screen some people can use it effectively and some can't. I don't expect some people to be able to wield the command prompt with the same effectiveness as me, but is it broken because they can't figure it out? Or should the user even be expected to understand that tool?

There's no dilemma. You answered your own question. If the tool can be used effectively it is always the user's responsibility to learn how to use it properly. End of story IMO.

I see your point but I don't agree. Tools can be obfuscated and difficult. And if it was always the users fault, they would just require training and processes instead of updating, adding new interfaces and bug-fixing.

What tools are you talking about? The tools provided by MS as stock are nothing but simple. Seriously. We are not talking here about recompiling the kernel or debugging some starnge occuurence. It's a search FFS!! The CLI could fit the description of "difficult" for some people, but then again, the OS provides other interfaces to do the same without using the CLI. There are millions of people using Windows, to some those tools will look impossible to descipher, to others, easy as pie. There are multiple options in every case. A power user will find those "advanced" tools simple and practical. A non savvy user will not use them and resort to use another simpler tool with a nice and colorful GUI. In every case, if the tool is indeed effective, it falls under the user's due diligence to learn how to use it.

All of them, but obviously you don't care to understand my point, so nevermind.

Why nevermind? I do see your point, I just think that when someone buys a new toy the onus of learning to use that toy is in the buyer provided the toy functions in the way it is advertized. It is obvious that the Search function works well, and it is also patently visible that it is a very simple tool to use. Other users will find better results with 3rd party applications to perform their queries (tools a la FileLocator Pro, for instance), or Everything for a very good free alternative. But this doesn't negate the fact that Search (as well as CLI, and/or Powershell) work very well for those interested in learning to use them.

An example would also be the file manager. Windows Explorer is, IMO, a horribly limited application. Yet it works within its limitations and users are - by and large - happy with it, otherwise we'd see an uproar of complaints about it similar to the ones raised apropos Windows Millenium and even Vista. But no. Other users will resort to 3rd party software to cover the limitations imposed by Explorer. I use Directory Opus. I learnt how to use it to its fullest potential, I have written add ons for it, etc. I could never go back and use Explorer again. Now, if upon purchasing a license for DOPus I'd have felt the application was too complicated, or even felt bothered by its learning curve, today I'd still be using Explorer.

The same could be said in regards to the examples I gave you on my previous post. You use the CLI because (pressumably) you come from the days of DOS (as I do), or Unix systems (as I do too). If you didn't, you *could* still perform the same tasks using a cheerful GUI. Another example is the registry. For years upon years MS discouraged users about the registry and its usage, yet in the days of Windows 9x I distinctively remember hacking the system all the time to fix glaring holes in stability and/or performance. Other users followed MS's recommendation and stayed away from the potential destructive power of screwing with the registry. But as a tool regedit was (and still is) one of the most effective ways to get stuff done in Windows.

I dunno what's so tough to understand about my position. You talk about bug fixes. Sure, there are and there will always be bugs in extensive code. That doesn't mean a tool is ineffective, since it is constantly refined and honed. It is the user who refuses to adapt and learn new techniques who is sabotaging his/her own experience with those tools. But it is up to the user, and those who don't care to learn, shouldn't complain either.

Well I been around and around with all this. I even left Windows for Mac OSX for about 3.5 weeks. That's how upset/angry I was over the direction of Windows 8. But to be honest I have to say I do in fact LOVE and appreciate certain aspects of the "Metro" (or whatever it will be called) design principals. Here are the things in it that I do tend to enjoy/like:

1) chrome gets out of the way of content

2) clean designs, less is more

3) "pure digital" is well...PURE why pretend to be something else

4) FULL-FULL screen --- I run most of my apps full-screen anyway so I don't mind that aspect!

but here is where things fall apart for me.....what I do NOT like:

1) HUGE text in place of icons....the text really doesn't need to be THAT GINORMOUS

2) Lack of any and all "skeuomorphic" accents/details/textures makes for very BLAH/plain and BORING designs

3) Though I love full screening stuff not everything needs that treatment especially on large desktop monitors. Examples of apps I NEVER (or almost never) full-screen:

EditPad (simple/HTML/Code(text editor)

Zip Utilities

PAR utilities

Directory Opus (file manager - of course the new OSes wish we would simply forget about the file system)

DVDFab

WinAmp

Calculator

MS Money

Infra-recorder (Burner app)

IMGBurn

4) My biggest issue with Win8/Metro is the lack of a persistent taskbar that would make multiple app switching/monitoring MUCH easier

I have high hopes for Windows 9 ("Revenge of the Desktop")....but meanwhile I think I'm staying with Windows 7.